ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 28-8-1993 dismissing his appeal against the penalty imposed on him.
2. Petitioner while posted as Medical Officer in Services Hospital, Lahore, was placed under suspension on 10-2-1986 on the allegation that he had attempted to molest the Lady Doctor Miss Atiya Anjum, House Physician on that day., A preliminary enquiry was held into the incident whereafter formal proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules were initiated against the petitioner. He was served with a charge-sheet together with a statement of allegations and after obtaining his reply thereto, a regular enquiry was held into the matter by Deputy Director, Health Services. Lahore Division. The enquiry officer submitted his report. Thereafter. a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he was also offered an opportunity of personal hearing. It appears that in the meantime, the Government had decided to proceed de novo in the matter and appointed Dr. Khalid Saifullah as the new enquiry officer who declined to accept the assignment with the result that no further proceedings could be taken. The Government then decided to proceed further on the basis of the enquiry report already submitted and finally by an order dated 1-2-1988, the 'Authority' imposed on the petitioner a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment. By another order of the same date, petitioner was reinstated in service but it was directed that he shall not be posted in any teaching hospital in Punjab for a period of five years. Petitioner filed departmental appeal against these orders but with 'no better result as the same was rejected by the appellate authority. He then took the matter in an appeal before the Service Tribunal which, to met no better fate and was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has contended that after having decided to hold de novo enquiry, it was not open to the departmental authorities to proceed on the basis of the enquiry report earlier submitted. Learned counsel with reference to the finding of the Chairman of the Service Tribunal sought to argue that the Government while acting under rule 18 of the E & D Rules was empowered to direct a fresh enquiry.
Learned counsel has further contended that the Service Tribunal was not properly constituted in so far as the Office of the Second Member of the Tribunal was vacant and in any case, since the Bench hearing the petitioner's appeal has given split verdict and as the Bench happened to comprise the Chairman himself and the only other Member of the Tribunal, the appeal could not be dismissed in terms of the opinion of the Chairman. This situation according to the learned counsel is one of first impression. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the difference of opinion between the Chairman and the Member of the Tribunal, the case requires to be examined in depth by this Court which warrants the grant of leave to appeal.
4. The a forenoted contentions, in our view, need fuller and deeper consideration by this Court.
Leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is, therefore, granted.